Sunday, June 18, 2006

St. Paul's Argument From Nature Against Homosexuality (Romans 1)

[originally uploaded in 1998]

Romans 1:26-27:

[26] For this reason God gave them over to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged the natural sexual relations for unnatural ones, [27] and likewise the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed in their passions for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

St. Paul mentions "dishonorable passions." To what does he refer? The next word "for" implies that what follows is an example of what Paul calls "dishonorable." So what does he present as an example?:

For their women exchanged the natural sexual relations for unnatural ones,

Paul is saying, then, that there is such a thing as "natural sexual relations" and its contrary, "unnatural [sexual relations]." This brings it down to the matter of natural law and God's created order, and all that that entails. Some things are natural, some are not.

So far, I have merely followed the syntactical and grammatical logic of the passage (at least in its translation). I don't think anything I have stated thus far could be argued differently, regardless of one's stance on homosexuality. What follows in the next verse is clearly related to what came before it:

and likewise the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed in their passions for one another.

This is very clear-cut. The "likewise" and the "also" inescapably imply that the men, too, have abandoned "natural relations" for "unnatural ones" (since it is an analogy). In other words, the contrast is between natural and unnatural, and also between heterosexual and homosexual sex. Paul is not merely saying that the "inflamed passions" are what is sinful, but the very concept and practice of homosexual relations, which goes against nature. The documented medical consequences of engaging in such unnatural and unhealthy sexual practices bear this out.

Since it is "unnatural" for men to be (sexually) with men, and women with women, according to the Apostle (and God, since the Bible is God-breathed), he describes the sexual acts as "shameless" and "error." There is no qualification here for things like rape or promiscuity or uncommitted, manipulative sex (that is the desperate eisegesis of those who already believe the Bible is neutral on the issue - itself an absurd proposition, in my opinion).

St. Paul makes an argument from nature. He is saying that the very notion of homosexuality is disordered and unnatural. Perhaps his phrase "received in themselves the due penalty for their error" refers to the medical and physiological consequences of these abnormal acts, but that is just speculation on my part.

There were plenty of negative repercussions for health with regard to sodomy before AIDS came around. AIDS is just one more confirmation that unnatural sex is physically dangerous (we know, e.g., that AIDS spread rapidly in Africa even among heterosexuals. Why? Because heterosexual anal sex is prevalent among many Africans - hence the spread of the disease). Sin is always dangerous. God tries to spare us of its consequences, but we are too dense and rebellious to accept Him at His word, and we insist on playing with fire, defying even nature itself, if need be.

Romans 1:18-32 is an argument from nature, a sort of primitive teleological argument (or, argument from design). He implies sins against nature in 1:24: ". . . the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves" (RSV). Idolatry is condemned in 1:25: ". . . they . . . worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator . . ." In my opinion, immoral sex amounts to a worship of the physical body as an object apart from the whole person who possesses it, and in defiance of the lifelong commitment within which moral sex is protected and placed in the proper context of whole love relationships with whole people (not just genitals), for a whole lifetime.

St. Paul makes a similar argument from nature (but a bit more sophisticated and theological) in 1 Corinthians 6:12-20, by stating that excessive appetite for sex (and also food?) amounts to being "enslaved" (6:12). He exclaims:

Do you not know that he who joins himself to a prostitute becomes one body with her? For, as it is written, 'The two shall become one flesh.' (6:16; RSV)

In other words, there is an ontological, created reality and natural order beyond mere physical pleasure, which must not be violated. Certain things are wrong by their very nature. Sex outside of marriage - whether heterosexual or homosexual - belongs in that category. Paul continues:

Shun immorality. Every other sin which a man commits is outside the body; but the immoral man sins against his own body. Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, which you have from God? You are not your own; you were bought with a price. So glorify God in your body. (6:18-20)

So heterosexual fornication and adultery are just as sinful, wicked, reprehensible, and unnatural as homosexual sex. These sexual sins violate the bounds of proper sex between males and females as God intended it: within a lifelong monogamous commitment of marriage. The same physical act which is right and proper and beautiful in one situation (in a marriage) becomes sinful in another (with a prostitute, or with one other than one's spouse). Homosexuality also violates this boundary but it goes a step further and violates the created order of sex itself, which God intended for male and female (and I think this is self-evident in the complementary physiology of the reproductive organs, and in the end result of conception).

One might say that fornication is an "ontological" sin against the moral "concept" of marriage, while homosexual sex sins both against the purpose of sex and the ontological, metaphysical, and spiritual (even physical) nature of sex itself. The next logical step is bestiality. The move has already been made from opposite sex and procreation to same sex and pleasure-only. In so doing, God's laws and natural law are spurned and scorned. So why not make the move to an animal, if the purpose is simply pleasure?

On the other hand, Paul seems to teach that all forms of sexual immorality are a sin against nature and against the Holy Spirit within us. Something bad actually happens in the very real spiritual realm. We become joined with the harlot. We sin against ourselves and our own bodies as well. We violate the temple of God (ourselves, if we are Christians, since the Holy Spirit indwells us).

Various versions of Romans 1:26-27 show us exactly what St. Paul is teaching (in reference to women and men, respectively). He compares and contrasts the natural, moral sexual act, with the unnatural, immoral act:

1) Phillips:

"normal practices of sexual intercourse" ----------> "something which is abnormal and unnatural"

"natural intercourse with women" -------> "lustful passions for one another"

2) Jerusalem:

"natural intercourse" -------> "unnatural practices"

"natural intercourse" -------> "consumed with passion for each other"

3) New English Bible / Revised English Bible:

"natural intercourse" --------> "unnatural [intercourse]"

"natural relations with women" -------> "burn with lust for one another"

4) King James (Authorized) / New King James Version

"natural use" ------> "that which is against nature"

"natural use of the woman" -------> "burned in their lust one toward another"

5) Revised Standard Version

"natural relations" ---------> "unnatural [relations]"

"natural relations" ---------> "consumed with passion for one another"

6) New Revised Standard Version

"natural intercourse" -------> "unnatural [intercourse]"

"natural intercourse with women" -------> "consumed with passion for one another"

"natural function of the woman" --------> "burned in their desire toward one another"

8) William Barclay

God therefore allowed them to go their own way, until they ended up as victims of their own dishonourable passions. Their women substituted unnatural intercourse with each other for natural intercourse with men. In the same way, men abandoned natural intercourse with women, and were inflamed with passion for each other. Men perpetrated shameless things with men, and brought on themselves the inevitable consequences which such misguided conduct was bound to bring. (1:26-27)

I don't see how this could be any clearer than it is. The assertion by radical homosexual exegetes that us traditional-types are distorting the Bible's teaching (whether it is inspired and preserved properly or not) and not presenting it properly, out of alleged "homophobic" motives, is groundless. The Bible, as it reads, is indisputably opposed to homosexual acts as a sin against nature, God, and one's own body. And it is all there right in Romans 1:26-27, as just shown - both lesbian sex and male homosexual sex are condemned as immoral as well as unnatural.

11 comments:

2 Corinthians 11:7-9, 13-167 A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. 8 For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; 9 neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. 13 Judge for yourselves: Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? 14 Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him, 15 but that if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For long hair is given to her as a covering. 16 If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no other practice—nor do the churches of God

Shall we then undo the doings of Women’s Liberation then? Or decree legal and illegal hairdoes? All in the name of "natural law", or rather tradition?

Finally a more or less comprehensive explanation, thank you! Technical question though. Suppose I'm not Christian, St Paul holds no authority over me, I am fully aware that God will put me in Hell no matter what, it wouldn't make much difference if I were a lesbian, right?

Well said Dave. What you say was common knowledge among rational, civilized people for two millennia and yet today to utter such words of clarity and sanity is to be called homophobic or reactionary. As H.H. Pope Benedict XVI emphasized repeatedly, Christianity is a religion of reason.

Turning to the complaint of En Seikou: The point St. Paul is making here is that women are naturally possessed of sensual beauty. They have been made that way to attract the opposite sex. Hence in every sane civilization women have dressed modestly and covered up. Is it not inappropriate that a woman enter a church or temple to pray flaunting her sensual beauty? Of course it is. There is a time and a place for everything. That is the meaning of religion. And to be religious is to seek to discern what is appropriate behaviour in any given situation.

Maximus, if "women are naturally possessed of sensual beauty ... to attract the opposite sex" then how come not all of them are lesbians attracting each other? This is not a joke. Lesbian feminists seriously argue that enforced heterosexuality and the myth of romantic love are the key means for patriarchy to dominate women and make them dependent on men.

In my own opinion, "beauty is in the eye of the beholder", not something objective. Otherwise, how could any woman be attracted to men who, according to you, are uglier than her?

You missed Saint Paul's point and mine in quoting him. Pauline Christianity is a religion made by straight males like him to serve the interests of straight males like you, by naturalizing your desires and denaturalizing other people's. He himself says that woman and men are inherently unequal because women came from men, i.e., they're secondary. I think no woman possessed of any self-respect would accept your brand of Christianity.

Paul doesn't teach inequality of the sexes. To the contrary, he states,

Galatians 3:27-28 (RSV) For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. [28] There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

The Bible teaches gender role differentiation, but not inequality.

But of course, that is a far too sublime, profound concept for our secular, "PC" society to grasp.

Dave, sublimity is great, but then you have people like Maximus, trying to draw rules for everyday behaviour straight from the Bible. And then the only possible reading is clear: men have the right to dictate behaviour and dress codes to women (read the burka, bans on abortion or whatever applies to specific religions, countries and eras). I wouldn't call that 'equality'.

Moreover, he himself acknowledged that his own arguments about nature didn't persuade even himself, so that his only reason was worldly tradition or 'because I say so': If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no other practice-nor do the churches of God.

Equality has nothing to do with individual moral judgements, either mine or yours. Equality is not just proclaming "you're all equal" like Saint Paul does without putting that principle to facts. Equality is a goal of political life and is about letting people decide by themselves on things that affect them. If men like you could get pregnant like women, then passing bans on abortion by simple majorities would be fine and fair, but in our real world whenever men have a saying on women's bodies and turn them into incubators, then there can't be equality.

Inequality is even more visible in an institution like the Catholic Church where women are explicitly excluded from priesthood. Then you have an entirely male body deciding what good women should be. There's the same contradiction in celibate men dictating what sex life within marriage should be like or whether divorce should be legal. Again, the issue here is democratic representation, not morality.

Finally, bans on gay marriage too are based on inequality to an even clearer degree. There's inequality when majorities set life conditions for minorities.

Do you dislike this idea of equality? Well, it only shows that religion and politics should be kept separate because they have completely different principles, which is something that many Christians seem unable to understand. Unfortunately for them religion is all about dictating to other people what they're allowed to do. This Christian Sharia has no place whatsoever in our modern world. You cannot win over people to your religion through laws and legal enforcements, but through moral arguments.

And by the way, appealing to nature is not a moral argument. With that you could justify murder just as well, like the Nazis did. Nature completely ignores human morality.

I forgot to mention: notice that Saint Paul proclaimed religious equality not just between men and women, but also between free people and slaves. Yet in practice that only meant that women and slaves could take part in Christian sacraments. It took more than 1800 years for the Church to decide that slavery as an institution was politically unacceptable. That shows to what degree religion and politics can be kept separate when that suits the ruling classes.

--- Marcus Grodi (director of The Coming Home Network, and host of the EWTN television show: The Journey Home)

I highly recommend his work, A Biblical Defense of Catholicism, which I find to be thoroughly orthodox, well-written, and effective for the purpose of making Catholic truth more understandable and accessible to the public at large.

God bless you in your indefatigable labors on behalf of the Faith! Only God knows how many lives your efforts have touched with the truth. . . . God bless you and give you joy and strength in persevering in your important ministry.

There is someone out there who says what I have to say much better than I ever could -- the smartest Catholic apologist I know of -- Dave Armstrong.

--- Amy Welborn (Catholic author and blogmaster)

I love your books, love your site, love everything you do. God bless you in your work. I'm very grateful for all you've done, and for all you make available. If someone pitches a hard question at me, I go first to your site. Then I send the questioner directly to the page that best answers the question. I know it's going to be on your site.

--- Mike Aquilina (Catholic apologist and author of several books)

People regularly tell me how much they appreciate your work. This new book sounds very useful. Your website is incredible and I recommend it regularly to new Catholics.

--- Al Kresta (Host of Kresta in the Afternoon [EWTN], author of Why Do Catholics Genuflect? and other books)

Dave Armstrong's book A Biblical Defense of Catholicism was one of the first Catholic apologetics books that I read when I was exploring Catholicism. Ever since then, I have continued to appreciate how he articulates the Catholic Faith through his blog and books. I still visit his site when I need a great quote or clarification regarding anything . . . Dave is one of the best cyber-apologists out there.--- Dr. Taylor Marshall (apologist and author of The Crucified Rabbi)

I love how Dave makes so much use of the Scriptures in his arguments, showing that the Bible is fully compatible with Catholicism, even more plausibly so than it is with Protestantism.. . . Dave is the hardest working Catholic apologist I know. He is an inspiration to me.

--- Devin Rose (apologist and author of The Protestant's Dilemma, 28 May 2012 and 30 Aug. 2013)Dave Armstrong['s] website is an amazing treasure trove representing hours–yea a lifetime of material gathered to defend Catholic doctrine. Over the years Dave has gathered the evidence for Catholic teaching from just about every source imaginable. He has the strength not only to understand the Catholic faith, but to understand the subtleties and arguments of his Protestant opponents.--- Fr. Dwight Longenecker (author and prominent blogmaster, 6-29-12)

You are a very friendly adversary who really does try to do all things with gentleness and respect. For this I praise God.--- Nathan Rinne (Lutheran apologist [LC-MS] )

You are one of the most thoughtful and careful apologists out there.

Dave, I disagree with you a lot, but you're honorable and gentlemanly, and you really care about truth. Also, I often learn from you, even with regard to my own field. [1-7-14]

--- Dr. Edwin W. Tait (Anglican Church historian)

Dave Armstrong writes me really nice letters when I ask questions. . . . Really, his notes to me are always first class and very respectful and helpful. . . . Dave Armstrong has continued to answer my questions in respectful and helpful ways. I thank the Lord for him.

--- The late Michael Spencer (evangelical Protestant), aka "The Internet Monk", on the Boar's Head Tavern site, 27 and 29 September 2007

Dave Armstrong is a former Protestant Catholic who is in fact blessedly free of the kind of "any enemy of Protestantism is a friend of mine" coalition-building . . . he's pro-Catholic (naturally) without being anti-Protestant (or anti-Orthodox, for that matter).

---"CPA": Lutheran professor of history [seehis site]: unsolicited remarks of 12 July 2005

I am reading your stuff since I think it is the most thorough and perhaps the best defense of Catholicism out there . . . Dave has been nothing but respectful and kind to me. He has shown me great respect despite knowing full well that I disagree with him on the essential issues.

Dave has been a full-time apologist for years. He’s done much good for thousands of people.

You have a lot of good things to say, and you're industrious. Your content often is great. You've done yeoman work over the decades, and many more people [should] profit from your writing. They need what you have to say.--- Karl Keating (founder and director of Catholic Answers, the largest Catholic apologetics organization in the world; 5 Sep. 2013 and 1 Jan. 2015)

Whether one agrees with Dave's take on everything or not, everyone should take it quite seriously, because he presents his arguments formidably.

I like the way you present your stuff Dave ... 99% of the time.--- Protestant Dave Scott, 4-22-14 on my personal Facebook page.

Who is this Dave Armstrong? What is he really like? Well, he is affable, gentle, sweet, easily pleased, very appreciative, and affectionate . . . I was totally unprepared for the real guy. He's a teddy bear, cuddly and sweet. Doesn't interrupt, sits quietly and respectfully as his wife and/or another woman speaks at length. Doesn't dominate the conversation. Just pleasantly, cheerfully enjoys whatever is going on about him at the moment and lovingly affirms those in his presence. Most of the time he has a relaxed, sweet smile.

--- Becky Mayhew (Catholic), 9 May 2009, on the Coming Home Network Forum, after meeting me in person.

Every so often, I recommend great apostolates, websites, etc. And I am very careful to recommend only the very best that are entirely Catholic and in union with the Church. Dave Armstrong’s Biblical Evidence for Catholicism site is one of those. It is a veritable treasure chest of information. Dave is thorough in his research, relentlessly orthodox, and very easy to read.

Discussions with you are always a pleasure, agreeing or disagreeing; that is a rarity these days.

--- David Hemlock (Eastern Orthodox Christian), 4 November 2014.

What I've appreciated, Dave, is that you can both dish out and take argumentative points without taking things personally. Very few people can do that on the Internet. I appreciate hard-hitting debate that isn't taken personally.

--- Dr. Lydia McGrew (Anglican), 12 November 2014.

Dave Armstrong is a friend of mine with whom I've had many discussions. He is a prolific Catholic writer and apologist. If you want to know what the Catholic Church really believes, Dave is a good choice. Dave and I have our disagreements, but I'll put my arm around him and consider him a brother. There is too much dishonesty among all sides in stating what the "other side" believes. I'll respect someone who states fairly what the other believes.

Recommended Catholic Apologetics Links and Icons

Protestantism: Critical Reflections of an Ecumenical Catholic

Orthodoxy & Citation Permission

To the best of my knowledge, all of my theological writing is "orthodox" and not contrary to the official dogmatic and magisterial teaching of the Catholic Church. In the event of any (unintentional) doctrinal or moral error on my part having been undeniably demonstrated to be contrary to the Sacred Tradition of the Catholic Church, I will gladly and wholeheartedly submit to the authority and wisdom of the Church (Matthew 28:18-20; 1 Timothy 3:15).

All material contained herein is written by Dave Armstrong (all rights reserved) unless otherwise noted. Please retain full copyright, URL, and author information when downloading and/or forwarding this material to others. This information is intended for educational, spiritual enrichment, recreational, non-profitpurposes only, and is not to be exchanged for monetary compensation under any circumstances (Exodus 20:15-16).